It has been said that America invented the right of free expression. Certainly, Americans are its most ardent proponents.

And yet, in recent years, an imaginary “right” not to be offended has infected our national consciousness and poisoned our political discourse.

Today on college campuses, draconian speech codes threaten to punish public as well as private speech deemed offensive by college bureaucrats — everything from sexually provocative comments and ethnic jokes to the expression of unpopular political opinions.

And in our litigious society, people with fragile sensibilities often sue to stop offensive speech.

Take, for example, the Cambridge resident who in 2012 filed a lawsuit claiming that the state seal, depicting a proud Native American under a sword, is offensive to native peoples. (And, coincidentally, seeking $24 million in compensation.)

Or consider the Acton couple, known only as John and Jane Doe, who sued their local school board claiming that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance so marginalized their atheist children as to violate their constitutional right to equal protection.

Thankfully, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last week rejected the Does’ claim and refused to find a constitutional violation on the basis of hurt feelings. But such impulses are encouraged by left-wing legal scholars like Fordham University Law professor Thane Rosenbaum, who argues that “free speech should not stand in the way of common decency,” and that we should ban expression that is psychologically “injurious” to certain groups.

Of course, decency is often in the eye of the beholder, and much political speech (for or against abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, or immigration reform — to name only a few hot-button topics) is inherently offensive to one group or another.

The fact is that those who wish to limit speech in the name of “decency” are interested only in protecting politically correct sensibilities. Across New England, college administrators fret about the feelings of gay students “forced” to listen to philosophic or legal arguments in the classroom against gay marriage, or about the feelings of Latino students confronted with — heaven forbid — signs advertising a party as a “fiesta.”

But is anyone interested in the feelings of Catholic students at Harvard University insulted by the satanic black mass that was scheduled to be held on campus last night as part of an “exploration of culture”? Certainly not the Harvard administration. For, in this brave new world, expression that maligns religious people isn’t considered offensive at all.

Personally, my view is that if a bunch of weirdos want to make a spectacle of themselves by holding a satanic mass at Harvard, then God love ’em — it only makes them look silly. I have no intention of letting myself be provoked by a group of infantile “devil-worshippers.” (Does anyone really believe these are devil-worshippers, rather than attention-seekers, looking to provoke the Catholic Church?)

It is a cliche, but many parents used to teach their children the saying: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”

The refrain was useful advice for dealing with schoolyard bullies, as well as for living in a free society — where eventually each of us finds ourselves offended by something. It provided a gentle reminder that words have no more power than that which the listener gives them.

It is not possible to cleanse our society of all things offensive in an effort to prevent hurt feelings. The best we can do is to remember that the antidote to offensive symbols, songs, pledges, political discussions, art, or rituals of any nature is more speech.